|
|
|
Environmentalism and the Republican Party A Response to Dan Rauch's "Managed Warming" Angela Cai For Justice Scalia and the dissenting justices in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), the issue at hand was not about the “desired outcome” for environmental policy, but rather an “straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion” to the EPA, allowing the agency to not regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant regardless of “how important the underlying policy issues at stake.” While none of the justices would even begin to argue that global warming and carbon emissions are not important environmental problems that the EPA ought to address, the four “conservative” dissenters will become symbols to environmentalists all over the country — symbols of conservatives’ unwillingness to engage with environmental issues. This is false, and it is up to the 2008 republican presidential candidates to renew the party’s interest in the largest unsolved collective-action problem of modernity. The underlying issue in Massachusetts v. EPA is not that the Supreme Court or all republicans do not care about the environment, but rather, that the problem lies in the current administration. The implicit undertone in the fact that “the statute says nothing at all about the reasons for which the Administrator may defer making a judgment — the permissible reasons for deciding not to grapple with the issue at the present time” is that the Clean Air Act carries with it explicitly political concerns, which is at odds with its supposed devotion to creating proper scientific solutions for the country’s welfare. What that shows is that the politicized underpinnings of environmental legislation — just look to the 2005 Energy Policy Act for how little our government cares about real solutions and how much it cares about lobbyists — must be deconstructed, or else we will have to live with the knowledge that we were unable to confront one of the biggest issues facing this globe because of petty political interests. It is unfortunate that former New Jersey governor Christie Whitman’s resignation from the EPA in 2003 did not galvanize public awareness that there is something seriously amiss with the way in which the current Republican administration deals with environmental correction. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, had said at the time that “Under the circumstances, Christie Whitman did the best she could at the EPA, but the Bush administration simply wouldn't allow her to do the job.” The real “reason” for Whitman’s decision to leave will probably never be known — don’t believe for a moment that the desire to spend time with family is ever a real reason to leave a position of power — but Whitman’s book It’s My Party Too: Taking Back the Republican Party can shed quite a bright light into what broad ideological conflicts exist within the structure of the Republican party. In an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations in 2005, Whitman expressed her qualms with the Republican Party that is exemplified by how the environmental problem is viewed. Whitman saw a “vocal and increasingly influential group within the Republican Party that deems that they have the ability to define what it means to be a Republican, and that definition is becoming ever narrower. It’s a definition that says if you even begin to want a discussion on embryonic stem cells, you can’t be a good Republican; if you believe that the government has some role in protecting the environment, that’s not a good Republican […] they also feel empowered to then go after people—Republicans—who don’t feel the way they do.[…]as they describe us, ‘Republicans in name only.’” For Whitman, and for many other disheartened political conservatives, this attitude towards extremism will lead to the eventual demise of the Republican Party as politicians lose competitiveness in the ability to discuss policy choices for problems that the public deems important. While environmental protection ought to be in of itself an important issue to any politician by sheer virtue of its impact on public life, even political realists must admit that it would be rather detrimental for any politician to not address the problem today. The media attention devoted to global warming, natural disasters, and population crises will necessitate attention, and to be known as the political party that does not put environmental issues at the top of the list is to sign a contract for eventual alienation from the public’s interest. What Whitman makes clear, and what many other Republicans would agree with, is the fact that environmental protection is clearly in line with conservative ideology, if there ever was such a thing. However, the future is not bleak, as many GOP leaders are pushing to express their views on climate change and energy policy, and those views are not one-sided. This is not a bad thing; if Republican debates over environmental policy come into the limelight, more enlightened decisions will surely be made. John McCain made a campaign promise in April 2007 to lower carbon emissions and set a cap-and-trade policy if elected. Chuck Hagel believes there ought not to be a cap on emissions because the market will eventually move towards efficiency and because caps will have undesirable consequences, such as shifting the market towards nuclear energy. Mitt Romney, though he abruptly pulled Massachusetts out of a regional coalition to lower emissions in late 2005 after spending half a million dollars on negotiating the agreement, has done reasonably well to push for alternative energy. Even more alarming is Rudy Giuliani’s record on environmental protection, which ranges from non-engagement to purely dismal. What the GOP candidates need to do is to view the next election as an opportunity to renew Republicans’ interest in the environment, to push away the notion that the Republican Party does not care. The party does not lack a baseline support for environmental issues; Teddy Roosevelt was a lifetime member of Republicans for Environmental Protection. On the municipal and state levels, there is rarely a stigma against Republicans who push for environmentally friendly land-use, water, conservation, and energy policies. This needs to translate to the national level as well. Angela Cai is a sophomore in the Woodrow Wilson School. |
| Send us a comment via email. |
|
|